A WARM REJOINDER.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 838, 9 June 1910, Page 6

A WARM REJOINDER.

MAGISTRATE AND EDITOR. COMMENTS IN "RAILWAY REVIEW." MB. HASELDEN, S.M., IN REI?LT. When the North Island Railway Appeal Board began its sittings yesterday, tho acting-chairman (Mr. Harden, S.M.) replied in warm terms to au article in tho May number of the "Railway Review," in which strictures wero levelled at him''with reference to his fairness in connection with tho hearing of appeal cases.

First of. all, Mr. Haselden asked Mr. Veitch if ho were president of tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and, receiving a reply in the affirmative, he continued: "Well, I want to tell you that I am not chairman of tho North Island Board'but of the South Island, and on this occasion I have been asked to sit by the consent of i tho appellant and the Department. Is that not so?" ' Mr. Veitch: Yes, that is so. Text of the. Article. Mr. Haselden then remarked that he had just received a copy of the "Railway Review," in which there was an article under the heading, "Appeals"— the text of which is as follows:— "The Ministerial misuse of tho veto when certain recommendations wero mado by the Railway Appeal Board last year considerably discounted the valuo of that tribunal in the eyes of the service. It is likely to suffer . further depreciation in consequence of the chairman's attitude towards some appellants who have recently come before him. Wo are afraid Mr. W. R. Haselden does not exactly realise the nature of the tribunal . over which he is occasionally asked to preside. Tho Appeal Board fur- ■ nishes appellants ,with an opportunity of complete arid impartial inquiry into their grievance. . We do not suppose that any man is fined or dismissed without a prima facie case being made out against him to : the satisfaction of his superiors; but . all this evidence on Departmental files is carefully prepared by those who have to justify themselves, therefore a Departmental file should not bo regarded as anything else but an exposition of the case as one-sided as a defending counsel's special pleading to a jury. "Mr. Haselden has shown an inclination to take these Departmental files too much at the Departmental valuation. In the Tecent appeal of . a New Plymouth signalman, Mr. Haselden put questions to tho appellant which would have, como more appropriately from the ' Department's representative than from the board's chairman, "lightly or wrongly, he gave the at a very early stage that liis mind was made up, and this attitude greatly handicapped those who wished to present Milne's case from Milne's point of view. That, we are not alone on our complaint is evident from the discussion at a recent meeting of the Wellington City Council upon Mr. Haselden's censorious attitude towards a' tramway motormau who gave evidence before him in connection with a tramway accident.". ; , "I will not Tolerate.lt." Referring to the article, Mr. Haselden said that he took exception to-its contents. If it were an ordinary newspaper report he would have taken no notice of it. But this journal was stated to be published by the A.S.R.S., and in the interests of the railwaymen. He would like to,know from Mr. .Veitch if the-60ciety took the responsibility for tho article. .. Mr. Veitch: I don't know the legal position; no doubt .'you'""know it better than I do. The matter was never discussed by the executive, and the article was not .written with its authority. Mr. Haselden remarked that the position was a difficult one. There was in the article a charge against him of unfairness and partiality. This was based on falsehood, and the arguments in tho article showed ignorance of the principles on which the board was .constituted. It was quite impossible that the tribunal could be maintained if one party only in a case could be allowed to publish such matter. Why, no self-respecting magistrate would consent to sit as chairman of tho board if one. party was to be allowed to attack him in that way. He was not going to defend himself, but ho would remind them that he had when necessary stood up against tho Department in favour of an appellant, and- that he had never shown any fear in allowing an appeal when he thought that the appellant was in the right. He wanted no praiso for that, but he was not going to sit there and tolerato censure from the editor of the "Railway Review" because in the conscientious discharge of his duties he had felt bound to dismiss some appeals, acting, of course, in every case ,with the elective members of the board who'had. sat with him. As ho was tho only person blamed by tho "Roview," ho had spoken as if the . responsibility rested chiefly with him. Tho writer of tho article seemed to think that tho chairman of the board must not ask any questions at all, and that the board must be content with tho material, brought out by the representatives' of the parties, al- ' though there might be matter which, though clear to those representatives, was not plain to the board.

"Editor had Misconceived his Duty." Now he would like to say that this articlo was written by a man who must have totally misconceived his duty as editor or. writer of this review. Tho editor was not in the position of an independent journalist writing for an independent paper, and therefore he must require that the article bo disavowed by the society and the offence must not bo repeated. . Reference was again mado by Mr. Haselden to the matter when later, Mr. Davidson, on behalf of the Department, handed a file of papers relating to tho ease to tho board. Ho said that tho editor of the "Railway Review," in his ignorance, made it appear that the board took the contents of such a file as if they-were proved. But as a matter of fact what happened was closely analagous to the procedure' in the Supreme Court in that respect Mr. Ryan pointed out that it often turned out that an appellant was not acquainted with the contents of the Departmental file. As a result ho was not in a position to bring evidence in rebuttal of the statements winch it contained. He did not say that tho Department should bo required to supply him with a copy of the' file, but it should certainly allow him to look over it before his case was heard by the board. Mr. Haselden: But the appellant would know all about the charges for he would bo present at the initial inquiry. Mr. Ryan: That is so, but oftentimes an accused does not fully understand all that .takes place at the inquiry. Mr. Haselden: But the charge is communicated to the accused from the very first. I have always endeavoured to give an appellant every opportunity to rebut tho charges^

"Something Must bo Done." Whilst argument was being heard in the case Mr. Haselden again referring to the article said: "I must revert to this misleading journal again." As he did so he held up a copy of the "Review." "The article," he continued, "says that I have presided over only a few appeal cases. Why. I have presided over from '10 to 50 appeals during tho last few years." . ' Subsequently, when tho case had been concluded, Mr. Haselden inquired as to when the matter would come before the A.S.E.S. Mr. Veitch: At the' next meeting. Mr. Haselden: When will that bo? Mr. Veitch: Meetings are held quarterly; the next will be held in August. Mr. Haselden: Oh, dear. "I don't want to say anything which can be construed into a threat or an indication of what might happen," conlinucd Mr. Hafoldcn. "It is too serious to allow it to rest. It must not. go on, so I. want something done. It would como I task itnm. jam* sida,"